Re: Allow tests to pass in OpenSSL FIPS mode

On 06.03.23 17:06, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2023, at 15:55, Tom Lane  wrote:
>> Daniel Gustafsson  writes:
> 
>>> For readers without all context, wouldn't it be better to encode in the
>>> function name why we're not just calling a hash like md5?  Something like
>>> fips_allowed_hash() or similar?
>>
>> I'd prefer shorter than that --- all these queries are laid out on the
>> expectation of a very short function name.  Maybe "fipshash()"?
>>
>> We could make the comment introducing the function declarations more
>> elaborate, too.
> 
> fipshash() with an explanatory comments sounds like a good idea.

committed like that

(I'm going to close the CF item and revisit the other test suites for 
the next release.)